Posted on 01/05/2015 7:45:39 AM PST by redreno
A new proposal in Oklahoma would bar drunk drivers from buying or consuming alcohol -- and already is raising concerns over how it would be enforced.
Fox 25 in Oklahoma City reports that state Sen. Patrick Anderson is proposing a bill that would allow a judge to enforce the alcohol restrictions on anyone with a DUI charge for a set period of time.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Big deal...that’s what buddies are for....
This is a nation of morons longing for a nanny state with a strong authoritarian rule.
It’s been about neo-prohibition since at least the mid-80s. That’s why the founder of MADD left the organization and lobbied against it on behalf of alcohol industries.
Prohibition was never her goal.
The CDC is already preparing the studies to push the standard down to 0.05 BAC (on the way down to 0.03BAC). Sweden’s standard is 0.01.
There have been calls for a 0.01 BAC standard for all people working in a bar (including the performers).
If you get a DWI/DUI and are on probation you are already prohibited from drinking alcohol .
By the time the state is done with you after being convicted of a DUI, drinking is about the only thing left that one CAN do.
This is yet another example of how we already have enough dammed laws.....
Anyone who has repeated DUI convictions is not going to be stopped from drinking alcohol by a law that prohibits them from buying alcohol. The only thing that would stop an active alcoholic or drug addict from engaging in dangerous behavior is some type of enforced, controlled living environment, period.
Actually, it’d be simple to enforce. You walk into a shop....you get carded, and it must be a OK state-license if you are a OK-state resident. Out of state folks? Pass on through.
You get arrested and get a guilty situation....new license and it as a DUI emblem on it....no booze sold any state shop or bar. Get caught buying for a friend? Earn four weeks in some county jail.
Personally, I don’t see a problem in doing this but admit it opens up a whole new arena of thinking. For someone over 300 pounds....maybe I could limit them as well. For smokers, maybe I could limit those folks too.
That’s as unreasonable as the gun control act of ‘68 barring any and all felons from ever having a gun.
Sheesh. It’s enough to drive one to drink.
only innocents seem to die at the hands of a drunk driver
I’m sure illegals without licenses will still be allowed to buy alcohol.
I’d be happy if DUI convicts were required to pass a bicycle safety course, you know - the difference between right and left, what a one-way street sign means, etc.
Wait’ll they take a zero tolerance/confiscation policy out on cellphone drivers.
They kill and maim too.
I almost had my neck broken by one in an accident at 10am one Saturday.
The law will, of course, be ineffective to its intended purpose ... but like most with power in the nanny state they’ll feel good about themselves for passing it. Self-esteem is very important to these nannies.
As a retired truck driver, we all could talk and drive with no problem and NO ONE ever considered texting ... it's just a stupid thought to the driver of a lethal weapon
Never heard that before? Anyone now if that is common in many states?
Some people on a cell phone or texting are in a total dreamworld, that I agree with.
When people drink, although it can be at any time of day, I’m sure the great percentage is at night-time. People know to be wary of it, especially on Saturday night, New Year’s eve and times like that.
But with a cell-phone, it seems it can happen at anytime as in your example, 10 AM one Saturday.
Let me get this strait so now when ever you buy alcohol at the store or order a class of wine with dinner you are going to have to present ID and pass a background check?
That will work just great.
The state likes it because it means revenue from fines.
The lawyers like it because they can drum up more clients/higher rates.
The politicians like it because they can show they are tough on crime (attaining higher office, seeking more contributions).
The insurance companies like it because they can charge higher rates.
If there was no profit motive, they wouldn’t press the issue.
They won’t lock up people because that COSTS the county money. And for some infractions would be considered “excessive”.
BTW blowing below 0.08 does not clear you of being charged, they will sometimes prosecute below that number. Blowing above that number will lead to easier conviction.
There are parts of Alaska that have banned alcohol consumption even at home (not just for criminals, all adults). I heard a pro-pothead cheering about it on Pacifica Radio.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.